Mid-term elections: Not looking so good for the Dems

[Jimmy Higgins]

I welcome more competition, but the fact is in '06 the Republicans were seen to the door because of the Iraqi occupation. In 2010, a massive landslide took out the Democrats because they passed the Affordable Care Act. Meesa thinksa, it is a little more complicated than just it is D v R.

so what you're saying is that like i said... whichever side is more pissed off that year is the one that wins.

No. The god blessed undecided voters and independents (read idiots), decide the elections.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To be fair, that crisis had solid roots dating back to 1971. It takes more than just a few years of mis-management to create a disaster of that scale.

Maybe at some primal level the USA just enjoys shitty leadership?

If the Republicans win, it is only because their only competition is the Democrats. Conversely, if the Democrats win, it is only because their only competition is the Republicans.

I welcome more competition, but the fact is in '06 the Republicans were seen to the door because of the Iraqi occupation. In 2010, a massive landslide took out the Democrats because they passed the Affordable Care Act. Meesa thinksa, it is a little more complicated than just it is D v R.

In 2006, Pelosi did nothing to get us out of Iraq and declared impeachment off the table. In 2010 Obama signed Romneycare into law. How much more complicated is it?

Nearly 10,000 American soldiers were dead or seriously maimed in one of the worst run occupations in American history. As a result, easily over 100,000 Iraqi civilians died in sectarian violence while the W Admin fought the hard battle in the media to say that it was a misunderstanding and much greatness was happening in Iraq. They were fired in '06.

In 2009, the ACA was passed in an attempt to offer access to health insurance to as many Americans possible (via a crap method of forcing privatized insurance on all Americans, of course, impeachment hearings would have launched up if Obama tried a National Health Care system). The Great Recession was gone and job growth was occurring. The Democrats were slaughtered in '10 and only held onto the Senate because of Tea Party candidates being in the General Election.

See the difference, the Republicans have to get hundreds of thousands killed to get fired, the Democrats need to get the economy back on its feet and reform health care to get annihilated. It is like Moore-Coulter in Electoral form.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not their base. The god blessed undecided voters did.

with all due respect, i don't buy the myth of the 'undecided' voter - i think it's a fantasy concocted to explain away a simple reality: voting is designed to be difficult in the US and most people don't bother doing it.

So all those undecideds say in '08 or '04 or '12 that couldn't just decide between the two main candidates? And I don't mean because they were both corporate shills, but because they seriously couldn't tell them apart.

 

[arkirk]

with all due respect, i don't buy the myth of the 'undecided' voter - i think it's a fantasy concocted to explain away a simple reality: voting is designed to be difficult in the US and most people don't bother doing it.

So all those undecideds say in '08 or '04 or '12 that couldn't just decide between the two main candidates? And I don't mean because they were both corporate shills, but because they seriously couldn't tell them apart.

When you can't tell one from the other, the odds go to 50/50. When you have more campaign money, the odds favor you. That's what we are looking at. Not every democrat is equally guilty of mimicking the Republican agenda. Some of them prevail from time to time, but the system does not offer alternatives to a quasi-Republican agenda.

 

[skepticalbip]

So all those undecideds say in '08 or '04 or '12 that couldn't just decide between the two main candidates? And I don't mean because they were both corporate shills, but because they seriously couldn't tell them apart.

When you can't tell one from the other, the odds go to 50/50. When you have more campaign money, the odds favor you. That's what we are looking at. Not every democrat is equally guilty of mimicking the Republican agenda. Some of them prevail from time to time, but the system does not offer alternatives to a quasi-Republican agenda.

Certainly the system does offer alternatives. But, for now, choosing the alternative will not get you elected because that isn't what the voting public want.

It seems that you are saying that the democratic process is good unless the majority want something other than what you want.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When you can't tell one from the other, the odds go to 50/50. When you have more campaign money, the odds favor you. That's what we are looking at. Not every democrat is equally guilty of mimicking the Republican agenda. Some of them prevail from time to time, but the system does not offer alternatives to a quasi-Republican agenda.

Certainly the system does offer alternatives. But, for now, choosing the alternative will not get you elected because that isn't what the voting public want.

It seems that you are saying that the democratic process is good unless the majority want something other than what you want.

I'm more worried when the majority are voting against what they actually want. That is where we are headed... again. They want Social Security, Medicare, in general support the ACA via a slim, but definitely growing majority, yet seem poised to give more power to the party that wants to trash all of it. It makes not bloody sense!

 

[doubtingt]

with all due respect, i don't buy the myth of the 'undecided' voter - i think it's a fantasy concocted to explain away a simple reality: voting is designed to be difficult in the US and most people don't bother doing it.

So all those undecideds say in '08 or '04 or '12 that couldn't just decide between the two main candidates? And I don't mean because they were both corporate shills, but because they seriously couldn't tell them apart.

It is true that many people do not vote, but those they didn't vote in the last election or the last midterms are the same ones most likely not to vote in this one. Therefore, the difference in outcomes and shift in support for Repubs vs. Dems from election to election is only modestly impacted by voter turnout. It is most impacted by people who consistently vote but change what party they vote for from election to election, and these tend to be those categorized as "undecided" and "independent" voters. As Jimmy points out, they are idiots, reactionary idiots. Of course the committed base of both parties is also comprised mostly of idiots. The difference is that the undecideds have no core principles, and its core principles on which the parties differ. Lacking principles they blow in the political hot air that surrounds each election allowing reactionary and inaccurate causal attributions for immediate situations (e.g., ISIS), and the vacuous rhetoric and superficial features of the candidates (including looks, gender, and race) decide where they land.

 

[prideandfall]

with all due respect, i don't buy the myth of the 'undecided' voter - i think it's a fantasy concocted to explain away a simple reality: voting is designed to be difficult in the US and most people don't bother doing it.

So all those undecideds say in '08 or '04 or '12 that couldn't just decide between the two main candidates? And I don't mean because they were both corporate shills, but because they seriously couldn't tell them apart.

i simply don't buy that there were undecideds in '04 or '12, so the question is fallacious to me.
IMO there's no such thing as someone who hasn't decided which candidate they will vote for, the question of being undecided is just whether or not they'll vote at all - but that question doesn't fit the narrative of the US political system being a fairly elected representative body of, by, and for the people... so this notion that there are people who are definitely going to vote no matter what and just haven't picked which person they're going to vote for strikes me as complete bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -

It is true that many people do not vote, but those they didn't vote in the last election or the last midterms are the same ones most likely not to vote in this one. Therefore, the difference in outcomes and shift in support for Repubs vs. Dems from election to election is only modestly impacted by voter turnout. It is most impacted by people who consistently vote but change what party they vote for from election to election, and these tend to be those categorized as "undecided" and "independent" voters. As Jimmy points out, they are idiots, reactionary idiots. Of course the committed base of both parties is also comprised mostly of idiots. The difference is that the undecideds have no core principles, and its core principles on which the parties differ. Lacking principles they blow in the political hot air that surrounds each election allowing reactionary and inaccurate causal attributions for immediate situations (e.g., ISIS), and the vacuous rhetoric and superficial features of the candidates (including looks, gender, and race) decide where they land.

is there any evidence to suggest these people exist? because i've never seen it, and i'm highly dubious of the claim that A. they exist at all, and B. exist in great enough numbers to make any difference to a large scale election.

 

[doubtingt]

So all those undecideds say in '08 or '04 or '12 that couldn't just decide between the two main candidates? And I don't mean because they were both corporate shills, but because they seriously couldn't tell them apart.

i simply don't buy that there were undecideds in '04 or '12, so the question is fallacious to me.
IMO there's no such thing as someone who hasn't decided which candidate they will vote for, the question of being undecided is just whether or not they'll vote at all - but that question doesn't fit the narrative of the US political system being a fairly elected representative body of, by, and for the people... so this notion that there are people who are definitely going to vote no matter what and just haven't picked which person they're going to vote for strikes me as complete bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -

It is true that many people do not vote, but those they didn't vote in the last election or the last midterms are the same ones most likely not to vote in this one. Therefore, the difference in outcomes and shift in support for Repubs vs. Dems from election to election is only modestly impacted by voter turnout. It is most impacted by people who consistently vote but change what party they vote for from election to election, and these tend to be those categorized as "undecided" and "independent" voters. As Jimmy points out, they are idiots, reactionary idiots. Of course the committed base of both parties is also comprised mostly of idiots. The difference is that the undecideds have no core principles, and its core principles on which the parties differ. Lacking principles they blow in the political hot air that surrounds each election allowing reactionary and inaccurate causal attributions for immediate situations (e.g., ISIS), and the vacuous rhetoric and superficial features of the candidates (including looks, gender, and race) decide where they land.

is there any evidence to suggest these people exist? because i've never seen it, and i'm highly dubious of the claim that A. they exist at all, and B. exist in great enough numbers to make any difference to a large scale election.

Let's suppose that the Repubs take the Senate this year. That would require that the Dems lose 5 or more seats, after having gained 2 seats just 2 years ago, lost 6 seats 2 years before that, and gained 8 seats 2 years before that. The thing to be explained is the rather rapid shift in % support. The only 2 plausible explanations are voter turnout and "swing" voters. Voter turnout requires that from one election to the next one (within 2 years), more core Dems turn out to vote than Repubs one year, then just 2 years later many of the Dem voters stay home while the Repubs that did not vote last time decide to show up.
Do you think that is more plausible than the existence of people who are committed to voting out of a vague patriotic duty (which is how voting is culturally characterized), even when they have no motivating principles that distinguish the choice options? Besides theoretical plausibility, I am pretty sure there are analyses showing that differential voter turnout and changes in the difference between parties from election to election are statistically insufficient to account for shifts in outcomes favoring one party over the other. We know that it is rare for people to shift party allegiance enough to shift what they are registered as, so that really only leaves "swing" voters to account for year to year changes in party victories.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Nearly 10,000 American soldiers were dead or seriously maimed in one of the worst run occupations in American history. As a result, easily over 100,000 Iraqi civilians died in sectarian violence while the W Admin fought the hard battle in the media to say that it was a misunderstanding and much greatness was happening in Iraq. They were fired in '06.

In 2009, the ACA was passed in an attempt to offer access to health insurance to as many Americans possible (via a crap method of forcing privatized insurance on all Americans, of course, impeachment hearings would have launched up if Obama tried a National Health Care system). The Great Recession was gone and job growth was occurring. The Democrats were slaughtered in '10 and only held onto the Senate because of Tea Party candidates being in the General Election.

See the difference, the Republicans have to get hundreds of thousands killed to get fired, the Democrats need to get the economy back on its feet and reform health care to get annihilated. It is like Moore-Coulter in Electoral form.

How many extra countries did Obama get us into? In fact, isn't he trying to get us back into Iraq?

We agree Obama signed off of Healthcare reform. I just mentioned something you don't want mentioned - who was the original author of Romney care.

So how much of a difference is there?

 

[skepticalbip]

So all those undecideds say in '08 or '04 or '12 that couldn't just decide between the two main candidates? And I don't mean because they were both corporate shills, but because they seriously couldn't tell them apart.

It is true that many people do not vote, but those they didn't vote in the last election or the last midterms are the same ones most likely not to vote in this one. Therefore, the difference in outcomes and shift in support for Repubs vs. Dems from election to election is only modestly impacted by voter turnout. It is most impacted by people who consistently vote but change what party they vote for from election to election, and these tend to be those categorized as "undecided" and "independent" voters. As Jimmy points out, they are idiots, reactionary idiots. Of course the committed base of both parties is also comprised mostly of idiots. The difference is that the undecideds have no core principles, and its core principles on which the parties differ. Lacking principles they blow in the political hot air that surrounds each election allowing reactionary and inaccurate causal attributions for immediate situations (e.g., ISIS), and the vacuous rhetoric and superficial features of the candidates (including looks, gender, and race) decide where they land.

But maybe not. I am one of those who would be labeled "undecided" or "independent". I don't vote for party. I vote for individuals. I actually take time to look at the voting record of the incumbent and listen to what the challenger claims to want to do. If I agree with the voting record of the incumbent then I will vote to reelect him. If I don't agree then I will look to see if what the challenger claims to see if it is closer to what I would like to see. If I like neither, then I vote for neither and skip on to the next race or write in a different choice.

So by the end of the ballot I can have voted for some Republicans, some Democrats, some Libertarians, some Independents, some races with no vote, and maybe even have some write in votes.

 

[Sarpedon]

Yeah, I used to be like that too. Until I sat down and thought about it, and realized that the most recent Republican presidential candidate I would have voted for was Dwight Eisenhower. So it would be disingenuous for me to say I wasn't a democratic voter. Of course, I reserve the right to not vote for a real stinker of a democrat, but it hasn't come up. (at least, the democrat has never been stinkier than the republican)

 

[SimpleDon]

I don't have much compassion for the Democrats. They decided to move to right to 'box in' the Republicans rather than to offer a real alternative.

This has pushed the Republicans further right into the full blown reactionary, anti-everything, wingnut conspiracy fearing mode that we see everyday. Perhaps it is the Democrats only choice because the mood of the country is overwhelmingly conservative.

The Republicans have done an excellent job trying to convince independents to stand for the opposing position they actually support. Add to this, the 30 years of brainwashing which has given us the Paul Ryans and Tea Party fools and you have a tough time getting the liberals to be able to win, because everything liberals want causes cancer and is anti-American.

Add to this that the Democrats have completely demoralized their base which has to come out in force just to keep the lunatic fringe from getting power and you have a dangerous political climate for the nation. A climate that will see Democrats lose ground, not because they failed in running the nation, but mainly because the Republicans prevented most progress.

What is ironic is that Republican Governors tout their progress in their last four years, yet will rail on Obama for making the country worse. And the people that decide elections apparently are too stupid to understand this.

I don't understand why the conservatives are so successful at convincing a near majority of people that they have a vision of government beyond giving the wealthy everything that the wealthy want. Conservatives claim that government doesn't and can't work. Why would anyone vote for them to run government then?

They are truthful in that a conservative lead government doesn't work. Why then would you vote for them?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nearly 10,000 American soldiers were dead or seriously maimed in one of the worst run occupations in American history. As a result, easily over 100,000 Iraqi civilians died in sectarian violence while the W Admin fought the hard battle in the media to say that it was a misunderstanding and much greatness was happening in Iraq. They were fired in '06.

In 2009, the ACA was passed in an attempt to offer access to health insurance to as many Americans possible (via a crap method of forcing privatized insurance on all Americans, of course, impeachment hearings would have launched up if Obama tried a National Health Care system). The Great Recession was gone and job growth was occurring. The Democrats were slaughtered in '10 and only held onto the Senate because of Tea Party candidates being in the General Election.

See the difference, the Republicans have to get hundreds of thousands killed to get fired, the Democrats need to get the economy back on its feet and reform health care to get annihilated. It is like Moore-Coulter in Electoral form.

How many extra countries did Obama get us into? In fact, isn't he trying to get us back into Iraq?

When you say "get in to", you mean what exactly? Are you comparing the Libyan, Yemen, Pakistan involvements with Iraq and Afghanistan where we overthrew the acting governments and took charge-ish?

We agree Obama signed off of Healthcare reform. I just mentioned something you don't want mentioned - who was the original author of Romney care.

So how much of a difference is there?

Romney wasn't campaigning for ACA in '12.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yeah, I used to be like that too. Until I sat down and thought about it, and realized that the most recent Republican presidential candidate I would have voted for was Dwight Eisenhower. So it would be disingenuous for me to say I wasn't a democratic voter. Of course, I reserve the right to not vote for a real stinker of a democrat, but it hasn't come up. (at least, the democrat has never been stinkier than the republican)

But the president is only one of many people running. There is the Senate, House, Governor, State Senate, State House, a slew of state elected positions, county commissioners and a slew of other county positions, city mayor, and a slew of city elected positions.

Of these, the president, has the least to say or control over your day to day life.

 

[SimpleDon]

a rather simple and straight-forward review of politics history for the last 70 odd years show that conservatives did that just fine on their own, it's pretty disingenuous to act like liberals are to blame for the fact that Republicans as a party went collectively bat-shit.

Perhaps it is the Democrats only choice because the mood of the country is overwhelmingly conservative.

except that this is a fallacy - look at any poll or any study about actual values and attitudes towards social issues and the country always polls pretty overwhelmingly (in the 60% or higher range) in favor of socially liberal and progressive ideals - abortion, gay marriage, health insurance, social security, etc etc.
it's just that this country's complete's bugfuck stupid political map gives inordinate power to low population backwood hillbilly states, and the people in those states are easy to corral via religious wedge issues.

This movement to the right by the Democrats has validated the anti-progress, know nothing, everything to the already rich, movement conservatism, rather than offering an alternative to it. The country is suffering because of it and will continue to suffer until there is a real progressive movement in the country.

it strikes me as being very wrong to try and blame that on Dems, when in fact it's the fault of voters - if you want a great example of this, look no further than 2004.
howard dean was the sort of progressive liberal candidate that people have been claiming they want from Dems for 20 years, and the voters utterly screwed the pooch and fucked themselves over that year.

you can't blame parties for being made of people that get elected - the problem in the US isn't the politicians, it's the public.

Actually I agree with you, the politicians are what the voters made them. But why are the people supporting bad government? Why does the government have such a bad reputation? This is the biggest single change I have seen in the 60+ years of my life, the government that defeated the fascists and got us through the Great Depression has such a bad image that people are willing to put the corporations, the banks and the wealthy in charge. And so much so that even after the disaster of the Great Recession they are still willing to.

 

[untermensche]

Republicans able to win despite being wrong about everything this century is really just a sign of how watered down and unappealing most Democrats are.

hardly - it's a sign of just how fucking retarded people who vote Republican are.

The retarded people are the people who think Hillary Clinton represents some movement from Obama. But that is not the midterms.

There are definitely the rabid Republican voters.

But if the Democrats represented anything but a different flavor of corporate control they might attract some rabid voters themselves.

 

[prideandfall]

Do you think that is more plausible than the existence of people who are committed to voting out of a vague patriotic duty (which is how voting is culturally characterized), even when they have no motivating principles that distinguish the choice options?

yes - that's in fact my entire argument: which party wins elections all comes down to which party's base is the more pissed off and thus bothers to go vote.

a very simple analogy for my perception of what happens with elections in the US:
there are 500 people who will vote D if they vote at all.
there are 500 people who will vote R if they vote at all.
there are 200 people some of which will vote D or maybe I, some of which will vote R or maybe L, if they vote at all.
any given election is determined by how many of those 500 from either side bother showing up to vote - and from election to election, depending on the last few years and the general mood of the country, the percentage of the 500 that bothers to vote will change, and thus the outcome will change.
if 300 Ds show up and 250 Rs show up, the Ds win. few years later maybe the Rs are all fired up and they get 320 people coming out to the Ds 230.
it's all just shifts within a pre-existing demographic of one or the other.

i find the entire idea of independents or 'undecided' voters to be a smoke screen and to be a completely ludicrous and implausible notion, excepting (continuing from the example above) that the R/D split is really close that year and the 3rd group just happens to nudge one or the other over the finish line, but they only matter in extremely tight races and the pendulum can go either way on that.
i do not buy into the idea of there being people who have to wait and think about whether or vote for an R or a D - i can buy it being like a D/I split or an R/L split on a person to person basis, but only in relatively tiny numbers.

Besides theoretical plausibility, I am pretty sure there are analyses showing that differential voter turnout and changes in the difference between parties from election to election are statistically insufficient to account for shifts in outcomes favoring one party over the other.

is there? where? it's a subject i'm interested in - if some study or poll can show this, i'd be quite open to changing my opinion on the subject. i've just never seen what you're referencing that even anecdotally shows this to be the case.

We know that it is rare for people to shift party allegiance enough to shift what they are registered as, so that really only leaves "swing" voters to account for year to year changes in party victories.

i don't think you need swing voters to explain it any more than you need god to explain the eyeball.

 

[prideandfall]

hardly - it's a sign of just how fucking retarded people who vote Republican are.

The retarded people are the people who think Hillary Clinton represents some movement from Obama. But that is not the midterms.

There are definitely the rabid Republican voters.

But if the Democrats represented anything but a different flavor of corporate control they might attract some rabid voters themselves.

i don't disagree with anything you said but i also think it's utterly ridiculous to say "oh well they're both heavily influenced by corporate considerations, therefor Ds and Rs are exactly the same" - it's that sort of stupid and ignorant thinking that leads to things like a 2 term bush presidency.

yes, politics in the US is a corrupt machine perpetuating benefits for the rich above all else, i don't dispute that at all.
but that doesn't mean both parties are the same. if i have to choose between corporate whores that want to make being gay illegal, make abortions illegal, enforce legally codified christianity, suppress women and minorities, and destroy the middle and lower class or corporate whores who will support (or at least not opposed) gay rights, keep abortions legal and safe, not codify religious rule into law, not actively suppress women and minorities, and not act to destroy the middle and lower class, that's a pretty easy choice to make.

 

[SimpleDon]

I mean, complete GOP control of government in the middle of the last decade led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Pretty much everything we're dealing with today in the Middle East is a result of short sighted GOP foreign policy.

To be fair, that crisis had solid roots dating back to 1971. It takes more than just a few years of mis-management to create a disaster of that scale.

I would agree with you that the rot in the Republican party dates from the Watergate disaster. Watergate certainly went a long way to tarnishing the reputations of the moderate and liberal Republicans. But the disaster of 2008 can only be placed at the doorstep of movement conservatism and its twin tenets of the free market and deregulation. I don't even think that we can fully blame the Reagan era Republicans. They seemed to have understood that all of the talk about social issues and the free market was only campaign issues to get elected to be able to fulfill the long time Republican goal of tax cuts for the wealthy and transferring as much of the wealth of the nation to the wealthy as possible. The real problem started in the mid and late 1990's when people like Newt Gingrich, the true believers in movement conservatism were elected. And of course, this reached a pinnacle of absurdity with the SCOTUS election of George W.Bush in December of 2000, that put true believers of movement conservatism in charge of all of the branches of government. People who didn't realize that all of the movement conservatism talk about the self-regulating free market, abortion, black crime running rampant, deregulation, flag burning, etc. were just campaign slogans to scare the rubes and they didn't constitute a reasonable way to govern the country.

Maybe at some primal level the USA just enjoys shitty leadership?

If the Republicans win, it is only because their only competition is the Democrats. Conversely, if the Democrats win, it is only because their only competition is the Republicans.

But there is no alternative to the Democrats and the Republicans. The half stupid verses the whole stupid.